“…it was remarkable that McCain could speak to a pastor for an hour and not mention Jesus’ name once or cite the Bible by chapter and verse. Obama, on the other hand, not only proclaimed Christ his Savior, but quoted scripture knowledgeably.”

Most religions today are like Nicodemus in that they have never understand the difference in water baptism and baptism with the Holy spirit, and multitudes have lived believing that a spouse will go to hell because they have never been immersed into water.

Yes the prophets knew Jesus, Jesus was the main theme of the majority of the prophecies.
Although Job was not considered a prophet said in Job 19:25 I know my Redeemer liveth and he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth.

The story of Nicodemus and Jesus is located in John 3: 1-22 in order to understand the water part, you cannot separate from the original question in verse 4-can I go back into my mother’s womb? Many religions equate being born of water with baptism. Neither one of them (Nicodemus or Jesus) was talking about baptism-being dunked or immersed in water, rather they were in fact talking about being born naturally-earthly- in the flesh.
Most religions teach that one must go to an alter, confess their sins, say a sinner’s prayer, be baptized-especially into the church and you are on the road to heaven. But this is truly an “unbiblical” teaching. When Jesus stated that you must be born of the spirit, he was saying “you must believe in me and accept me as your personal savior”. Poor old Nic just couldn’t quite get the picture, though and Jesus winds up chastising him. So when you asked the question “does the same person who baptized you with fire have to be the one who baptized you by water?’ it absolutely makes no sense to me.

Modern day Christians usually want to be immersed as an outward sign that they now ‘belong’ to Jesus for all eternity. But being immersed does not guarantee admittance into heaven. Many who believe they are Christians will be told “I never knew you”.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world-not just a person or two, but the whole world, His son was not sent to condemn, but to save. He is more than just, and more just than any human deserves.

I have a few questions for you:

For what purpose did John baptize?
Did the prophets of the Old Testament know who Jesus was?
Does the same person who baptizes you with “fire” have to be the one who baptizes you by water?
Why would Jesus himself say that we must be born of water and the Spirit to be saved?
Do you think God is fair and “no respecter of persons?”

Answering these questions will help me understand where you’re coming from in your beliefs, and no, I’m not trying to “set a trap.”

If you are talking about dedicating that infant by means of sprinkling or ‘baptising’ then we would be talking about a different subject.

But, UKL is quite right that until the Protestant reformation, every Christian, whether Catholic or Eastern Orthodox (which were the two brands available) baptized infants by “sprinkling,” just as those churches and many others still do today, including the Episcopal Church. She’s also right that whatever John the Baptist did in the Jordan River, the earliest descriptions we have of the way Christians actually practiced showed that infant baptism had taken hold virtually from the beginning.

Do you believe that every Christian in the world just got it wrong for 1600 years? Do you really believe that during that long time period, no one was really baptized?

And, to take it one step further, since in most churches only the baptized can partake of holy communion, do you believe that for 1600 years, no one had an effective communion?

And, if they were wrong about this, what else were they wrong about? Were they wrong in deciding what books of the New Testament to canonize? The process of canonization was undertaken entirely by men (and they were unfortunatly all men) who practiced infant baptism, and engaged in various other practices with which you wouldn’t agree, either. How do you separate the wheat from the chaff?

I know these are big questions, but when you decide a whole millenium of theology is just wrong, it makes a big hole.

Now ask yourself this question: if you were in the dessert dying-never having been baptized, no water for miles and you asked Jesus to be your savior and then subsequently died-do you really think God would not accept you into his heaven? God knows what is in your heart, and if your heart has Jesus in it, then you are baptized with the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 1:10-17 is largely about divisions in the church over baptism and other matters (imagine that! Even way back then…). Paul mentions in verse 14 that he did baptize Crispus and Gaius… meaning that he did preform baptisms.

Paul was baptized himself almost immediately after his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus, and well before beginning his ministry.

Moreover, Paul wrote a lot of about baptisism, a topic that would not reoccur in his letters if he did not think it was important. I think you should reread Ephesians 4:4, which asserts that there is one baptism, not two (ie. one of the spirit and one of water).

It was the practice of the ancient church to baptize infants, a practice that was universal in Christianity for over a thousand years. To assert that “parents can baptise infants all day long and until they attain the age of accountability it is to no avail,” is to claim that there were no “real” Christians before the 16th century, a pretty audacious claim. We can argue whether there is scriptural support or not (I believe there is), but obviously if the people who knew and learned at the feet of the apostles practiced infant baptism, then the “error” must have started rather early…

Also, please direct me to where the “age of accountability” is defined in the Bible…

I also would be bereft as a Lutheran not to point out that Baptism in not a “once and done” kinda thing, but rather that we should all die and rise anew in Christ each day, living into our baptisms and living out our baptismal vocation.

Read John 3:3-5 and Luke 7:29,30. You might want to rethink that “baptism-isn’t-necessary-for-salvation” theory. Besides, why would John and Phillip, two ministers of the gospel who are mentioned as baptizing, waste their time if it wasn’t necessary.

And what about the great commission given by the Lord to his apostles? What did he tell them in the 16th chapter of Mark?

On top of that, why would the Lord himself receive baptism from John if it wasn’t necessary? You can talk semantics all you want about whether or not the Bible expressly commands it; I think it’s pretty obvious that it does, but I can see why others think differently. However, I would think that logically it would be best to see that Jesus himself was baptized, his followers that lived during his time were baptized and when the one who you profess to follow says something like “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned,” I’d rather believe he could have just as easily added the words “and is not baptized” between “believeth not” and “shall be damned.”

That’s just me….

As far as Mr. Warren not mentioning Jesus’s name in his speech to this Jewish group; what was the intention of this remarks? Were they to preach the gospel? or we’re they to teach principles of how to improve their life in general?

Look at the intent of the remarks. I might not agree with his theology, but I think Mr. Warren has done enough mentioning of the name of Christ to be completely sure he is not shy about doing so when the occassion requires it.

It is essential that our motive in preaching be one of seeking God’s approval rather than man’s. If one cannot preach the ‘gospel’ and neglect mentioning the name of Jesus, what need is there to preach at all?